You were given a choice. Many weren't, and California has never been conservative. Not even when Reagan was Governor.

It still is.It was around the early 60s, back when the majority of the nation was still Conservative. Marxists hadn't yet Gerrymandered voting districts, San Fran was still Libertarian, and the govt had yet to interfere with personal lives.Reagan was not yet a Conservative, even as Governor, he was a big tax guy and was the first in the State to attack the 2nd.But still, it was the people that were Conservative. If not for Gerrymandering, the state is still predominantly Conservative, it's just the coast, and a small geographical area, but they have the majority vote and pretty much dictate what the rest of the State does, which is why soj51 came to be.

Not much has changed, with the exception of a corrupt panel redoing the voter lines.

It still is.It was around the early 60s, back when the majority of the nation was still Conservative. Marxists hadn't yet Gerrymandered voting districts, San Fran was still Libertarian, and the govt had yet to interfere with personal lives.Reagan was not yet a Conservative, even as Governor, he was a big tax guy and was the first in the State to attack the 2nd.But still, it was the people that were Conservative. If not for Gerrymandering, the state is still predominantly Conservative, it's just the coast, and a small geographical area, but they have the majority vote and pretty much dictate what the rest of the State does, which is why soj51 came to be.

Not much has changed, with the exception of a corrupt panel redoing the voter lines.

Gerrymandering in California began in the early 1960s with Governor Pat Brown (Governor Moonbeam's father) who was rabid Democrat. You apparently have forgotten the liberal riots at Berzerkeley during the 1960s. Even then San Francisco had a deep-seated hatred for the US and everything military.

I too was born in California, and the only time California can be construed to have been conservative was during the Civil War.

Gerrymandering in California began in the early 1960s with Governor Pat Brown (Governor Moonbeam's father) who was rabid Democrat. You apparently have forgotten the liberal riots at Berzerkeley during the 1960s. Even then San Francisco had a deep-seated hatred for the US and everything military.

I too was born in California, and the only time California can be construed to have been conservative was during the Civil War.

Of course Brown was a lib, but he was what we call today a moderate Pub. As to Berzrrkely, again, these were hotspots of the liberal bastion, but the rest of the State has and still is Solidly Conservative.I can only assume you grew up in one of the lib rat nests, otherwise, you would know better than to assume the rest of the State is just another leftist shithole.Even Sac, the Capitol was a Conservative town up until they elected Mayor Ann Rudin the leftist feminazi, which is about the time I bailed on the town and moved North, a literal opposite culturally speaking.I still live here and I can attest to the fact that the Northern part of the State is still solidly Conservative. Why do you think we want secession?

Of course Brown was a lib, but he was what we call today a moderate Pub. As to Berzrrkely, again, these were hotspots of the liberal bastion, but the rest of the State has and still is Solidly Conservative.I can only assume you grew up in one of the lib rat nests, otherwise, you would know better than to assume the rest of the State is just another leftist shithole.Even Sac, the Capitol was a Conservative town up until they elected Mayor Ann Rudin the leftist feminazi, which is about the time I bailed on the town and moved North, a literal opposite culturally speaking.I still live here and I can attest to the fact that the Northern part of the State is still solidly Conservative. Why do you think we want secession?

As your maps clearly show the majority of the area is occupied by Republicans (not necessarily conservative) and small areas dominated by Democrats (who are definitely not conservative). It is in those small areas where the highest populations are to be found, which is the cause of the mental disease of liberalism.

I grew up in a variety of different areas, but primarily rural. I didn't even become aware of politics until Pat Brown was Governor. I became a Goldwater Republican. In 1989 when California banned, without a grandfather clause, several firearms that I had legally purchased in California years earlier I had three choices:

Comply with the law and turn in my now banned firearms, and hope that I am not thrown in prison;

Keep my now illegal firearms and remain a criminal, hoping that I never get caught; or

The city of Sacramento may be conservative, but the State legislature that occupies the capital certainly isn't. Conservatives have not been represented in California in more than 100 years.

California's predicament is not unlike the rest of the nation. The overwhelming majority of the area of the US is occupied by primarily Republicans. It is only in small pockets (area-wise) that are dominated by Democrats and those small pockets tend to be the high population areas. The more urban the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Democrats. The more rural the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Republicans.

Make no mistake, however, Republicans and conservative are not synonymous. As is evident by all the RINOs currently in Congress.

As your maps clearly show the majority of the area is occupied by Republicans (not necessarily conservative) and small areas dominated by Democrats (who are definitely not conservative). It is in those small areas where the highest populations are to be found, which is the cause of the mental disease of liberalism.

I grew up in a variety of different areas, but primarily rural. I didn't even become aware of politics until Pat Brown was Governor. I became a Goldwater Republican. In 1989 when California banned, without a grandfather clause, several firearms that I had legally purchased in California years earlier I had three choices:

Comply with the law and turn in my now banned firearms, and hope that I am not thrown in prison;

Keep my now illegal firearms and remain a criminal, hoping that I never get caught; or

The city of Sacramento may be conservative, but the State legislature that occupies the capital certainly isn't. Conservatives have not been represented in California in more than 100 years.

California's predicament is not unlike the rest of the nation. The overwhelming majority of the area of the US is occupied by primarily Republicans. It is only in small pockets (area-wise) that are dominated by Democrats and those small pockets tend to be the high population areas. The more urban the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Democrats. The more rural the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Republicans.Make no mistake, however, Republicans and conservative are not synonymous. As is evident by all the RINOs currently in Congress.

As your maps clearly show the majority of the area is occupied by Republicans (not necessarily conservative) and small areas dominated by Democrats (who are definitely not conservative). It is in those small areas where the highest populations are to be found, which is the cause of the mental disease of liberalism.

I grew up in a variety of different areas, but primarily rural. I didn't even become aware of politics until Pat Brown was Governor. I became a Goldwater Republican. In 1989 when California banned, without a grandfather clause, several firearms that I had legally purchased in California years earlier I had three choices:

Comply with the law and turn in my now banned firearms, and hope that I am not thrown in prison;

Keep my now illegal firearms and remain a criminal, hoping that I never get caught; or

The city of Sacramento may be conservative, but the State legislature that occupies the capital certainly isn't. Conservatives have not been represented in California in more than 100 years.

California's predicament is not unlike the rest of the nation. The overwhelming majority of the area of the US is occupied by primarily Republicans. It is only in small pockets (area-wise) that are dominated by Democrats and those small pockets tend to be the high population areas. The more urban the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Democrats. The more rural the area, the more likely it will be dominated by Republicans.

Make no mistake, however, Republicans and conservative are not synonymous. As is evident by all the RINOs currently in Congress.

Sac is no longer Conservative, the libs took over when SF housing prices skyrocketed.This map says it all.

zewazir

Sac is no longer Conservative, the libs took over when SF housing prices skyrocketed.This map says it all.

Darn right this map says it all, as in the direct reason the Electoral College was designed as the means of electing a president. In a purely popular vote design, the politics of high population density (progressive) would overwhelm the politics of low population density (conservative), creating an ignored, over taxed and over regulated second class of citizenry. (Kind of like it is now. But without any recourse.)

Darn right this map says it all, as in the direct reason the Electoral College was designed as the means of electing a president. In a purely popular vote design, the politics of high population density (progressive) would overwhelm the politics of low population density (conservative), creating an ignored, over taxed and over regulated second class of citizenry. (Kind of like it is now. But without any recourse.)

The popular vote for President was a creation of the States in 1824, and is not included in the US Constitution. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, each State could determine their Electoral College delegates by flipping a coin. It is entirely up to the State. There is also nothing that binds a given State legislature to abiding by the will of the popular vote.

It is only because the States chose to use the popular vote to determine how their Electoral College delegates would be selected that we have a near balance between urban and rural voters. You still can end up with States like California where the urban folks out number the rural folks, thus causing an imbalance. But on a national level the Electoral College is pretty balanced between urban and rural because States chose to use the popular vote.

The popular vote for President was a creation of the States in 1824, and is not included in the US Constitution. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, each State could determine their Electoral College delegates by flipping a coin. It is entirely up to the State. There is also nothing that binds a given State legislature to abiding by the will of the popular vote.

It is only because the States chose to use the popular vote to determine how their Electoral College delegates would be selected that we have a near balance between urban and rural voters. You still can end up with States like California where the urban folks out number the rural folks, thus causing an imbalance. But on a national level the Electoral College is pretty balanced between urban and rural because States chose to use the popular vote.

We have in existence today that states choose how to distribute electoral votes. A few states are not winner take all but distributed by congressional district.

Darn right this map says it all, as in the direct reason the Electoral College was designed as the means of electing a president. In a purely popular vote design, the politics of high population density (progressive) would overwhelm the politics of low population density (conservative), creating an ignored, over taxed and over regulated second class of citizenry. (Kind of like it is now. But without any recourse.)

Interesting isn't it? While half the population may have a say, that half is condensed into what appears, to be less than 10% of the geologic topography.Too bad we did away with the landowner vote.

zewazir

Interesting isn't it? While half the population may have a say, that half is condensed into what appears, to be less than 10% of the geologic topography.Too bad we did away with the landowner vote.

One drawback of assuming everyone should have the right to vote is that by doing so they are influencing government, thus influencing the lives of others whom they not only do not know, but have no concept of how they live their lives. We give people the authority of political force without any due consideration whether they are responsible enough to exercise that authority. Of course, then we edge up against the problem of how to determine what is a "responsible" citizen? By what measure, and who does the measuring? Even limited democracy, as we find in a constitutional republic such as ours, has its sticky wickets.

My personal opinion, it was a mistake to lower the voting age to 18. But it is a very valid argument that if 18-year-olds are old enough to don a U.S. military uniform, they should have a say in the government that sends them who-knows-where to be shot at. My answer to THAT argument, though, is to say "Fine. So 18 Y.O. cannot enlist in the military either." But that's just me.

Late last month, the United States Supreme Court issued a docket number for the Writof Mandamus filed by Citizens for Fair Representation (CFR). The Writ asks thatSCOTUS direct the Federal Judge to have CFR's case v California Secretary of StateAlex Padilla, heard before a 3-Judge Court. This was exciting news and it isthought that CFR should hear from SCOTUS, within the next 60 days.

One drawback of assuming everyone should have the right to vote is that by doing so they are influencing government, thus influencing the lives of others whom they not only do not know, but have no concept of how they live their lives. We give people the authority of political force without any due consideration whether they are responsible enough to exercise that authority. Of course, then we edge up against the problem of how to determine what is a "responsible" citizen? By what measure, and who does the measuring? Even limited democracy, as we find in a constitutional republic such as ours, has its sticky wickets.

My personal opinion, it was a mistake to lower the voting age to 18. But it is a very valid argument that if 18-year-olds are old enough to don a U.S. military uniform, they should have a say in the government that sends them who-knows-where to be shot at. My answer to THAT argument, though, is to say "Fine. So 18 Y.O. cannot enlist in the military either." But that's just me.

Robert Hienlein answered both those questions in his book Starship Troopers, a must read for conservatives.

He says that only veterans shld vote because they have proven a willingness to place the wellfare of the country above their own wants and desires. According to him veterans are more likley to ask what they can fo for their country as opposed to the other way around.

As to the argument that if u are serving you shld vote, in Heinleins fictional world it was only veterans and not active duty personnel who cld vote, because according to him, if active soldiers cld vote then many wld vote not to go to war only out of a sense of self preservation, without considering the bigger picture.